Socialist Decentralization in the Andes?

7 Socialist Decentralization in the Andes? Explorative Reflections on Radical Democracy and 21st Century Neo-Constitutionalism Rickard Lalander Rickard Lalander1 Introduction Since the 1990s, Latin America has experienced a series of reforms aimed at improving the political participation of disempowered sectors of society, often emphasized as vital for combating political centralism and clientelism and for strengthening democracy and the legitimacy of political institutions. Popular participation and decentralization have progressed as the prime benchmark for democratic quality. In the recent wave of constitutional reforms, the Andean transformations of the legal terrain have been emphasized as being among the most far-reaching in the world in creating devices to enhance popular participation at local level and similarly to narrow the gap between the State and civil society. Andean countries also pioneered in what has been labeled multicultural constitutionalism, increasing the legal recognition of traditionally excluded ethnic groups (Van Cott, 2008). These neo- constitutionalist processes equally challenged the perception of democracy. The Latin American political systems were deeply rooted in a liberal model of representative democracy, whereas neo- constitutionalist actors endorsed a radical participatory form of democracy, at times directly inspired by the visions of the collective will of Jean-Jacques Rousseau (Peeler, 2009: 211-213; Ellner, 2010). The triumph of Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías in the Venezuelan presidential elections of 1998 broke the pattern of neoliberal governments in Latin America, which characterized all democracies of the continent until then. The Constituyente (constitutional rewriting) was the central banner of Chávez during the electoral campaign of 1998 and the key strategy to change the political system and get rid of vices of the past. Thereafter a rising number of nations witnessed alterations towards the political Left. In Brazil Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was elected president in 2002, in Bolivia Evo Morales Ayma in 2005 and in Ecuador 2006 saw the victory of Rafael Correa. In Bolivia and Ecuador radical constitutional reforms were popularly approved subsequently to provide the basis of a more 1 Rickard Lalander is a political scientist, Associate professor and PhD. in Latin American Studies (University of Helsinki). He is currently research fellow at the Institute of Latin American Studies, Stockholm University, and associate researcher at the Department of World Cultures, University of Helsinki and the Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Quito. He is author of the books: Retorno de los Runakuna. Cotacachi y Otavalo (2010) and Suicide of the Elephants? Venezuelan Decentralization between Partyarchy and Chavismo (2004), editor and co- author of Venezuelan Politics and Society in Times of Chavismo (2006) and has published broadly on the Andean countries in international academic journals and books. E-mail: [email protected] Web page: http://www.lai.su.se/?lalander 8 participatory and inclusionary model of democracy.1 The governments of Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela have since 2006 spearheaded the so-called 21st Century Socialism in Latin America. From a continental viewpoint, Hugo Chávez consequently broke new ground, catapulting the alleged leftist transformation of Latin America. His rise to power in Venezuela and the subsequent consolidation of leftist forces elsewhere in the continent signaled that the hegemony of neo-liberal governments in Latin America was broken. True, some scholars view this transition in terms of a populist revival in Latin America (e.g. Roberts, 2007), progressive populism (Clark, 2010) or even a constitutionalization of populism (Kögl, 2010). The aim of this essay is two-fold. On the one hand a critical reflection will be provided regarding how the constitutional objectives of encouraging social inclusion and local level political participation are reflected in recent political processes in Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela, amidst neo-constitutionalism and 21st Century Socialism. The study also analyzes how the radical democratic vision of the countries is expressed in the constitutions and I will likewise offer a few examples of probable practical political challenges and contradictions regarding the implementation of these measures for participatory democracy. On the other hand, although still connected to the first aim, there is also a theoretical-analytical purpose in launching a new concept into the scholarly debate: socialist decentralization,2 which is contrasted with previous approaches to decentralization, to better be able to grasp the complex development of politics in Andean socialist democracies. This study thus approaches a central theme in the more recent wave of Latin American neo-constitutionalism, namely the tensions and contradictions between the national and local political levels amid participatory/radical democracy. Similarly, the mechanisms provided through the constitutional reforms to stimulate political participation at the local level are contrasted with the possible reinforcement of the executive power at national level, including the possible populist and centralist traits of Presidents Chávez, Correa and Morales (and the movements around them). Could the strengthening of the national executive supremacy and neighborhood (or community) level participation be mutually reinforcing? It should be clarified that in this study I will not sort out to which degree Chávez, Correa and Morales should be classified as leftist, socialist or populist.3 A problematization around 9 the self-proclaimed epithet “socialist/socialism” in the context of the three regimes will therefore not be included in this study. My concern is rather to problematize the theoretical debate of decentralization and radical/participatory democracy in the three Andean countries and to indicate central challenges also for the political projects around Chávez, Correa and Morales. It is likewise important to underscore that socialism –or other political and economic doctrines- are not completely static concepts, but ongoing processes (e.g. Petras, 2010: 4). The socialist course of Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela are works in progress and depend on individual societal historical circumstances in the respective countries. It likewise merits emphasizing that this is not a systematic comparative study; instead the idea is to provide a series of illustrative and explorative reflections on the theme. In broader terms, certain similarities and decisive differences between the countries can be observed. Venezuela stands out for its early democratization, already in 1958, compared to 1979 in Ecuador and 1982 in Bolivia. The three resemble each other regarding strong oligarchic structures, elite settlements and unequal distribution of incomes. In Bolivia, powerful economic elites have been concentrated mainly in the lowland Santa Cruz area and in Ecuador big business has principally been concentrated in coastal Guayaquil.4 Venezuela presents a more differentiated panorama in terms of economic elite groups. New elite groups emerged through the democratization of 1958 around the two dominant political parties –social democratic AD (Acción Democrática) and Christian Democratic COPEI- with strong control of social organizations and ties to business sectors. Until the early 1990s Venezuela had a strong two-party-system, although with decentralization since 1989, this partisan dominance was rapidly undermined with the emergence of alternative political actors at sub-national levels. In comparison, pre-Chávez Venezuela lacks tradition of mass movement mobilization. In Bolivia decentralization took place in 1994, with the Law of Popular Participation/LPP and the municipalization of the political system. The LPP became a vital platform for the MAS party/movement (Movimiento Al Socialismo) of Evo Morales, even if other factors contributed, like protest activities and social mobilization.5 Ecuador has longer historical traditions of municipal and provincial elections than many of its neighbors. In practice, though, political leaders at these levels have been politically weak due to lack of economic transferences. Only in 1998 a principle of co- participation and economic transfers to the sub-national governments were established through a legislative reform. 10 21st Century Socialism In the late 1990s, few analysts believed that the movement around Hugo Chávez (Chavismo) would evolve into a new alternative to neo-liberalism on the continent. Although, only recently -since 2005- has the Chávez government itself classified the Venezuelan transformation as a socialist project, i.e. at the time socialist political forces triumphed in Bolivia and Ecuador. This is no coincidence. There are both domestic and continental explanatory factors behind this ideological shift. It is most likely that the strategies of the Venezuelan opposition between 2002 and 2005, including a coup attempt, protest marches, strikes, paralyzation of the economy, referendum on the President´s mandate, among others, forced Chavismo into radicalization and closer to socialism. The oppositional strategy to boycott the parliamentary elections of 2005 made this radicalization easier for Chavismo, since the National Assembly facilitated presidential law-making through decree, leaning on its majority in parliament. The leftist transformation in Latin America since 2002 also contributed, understood as a kind of recognition of the

Load more